I think you make a solid point but the difference is that Mercedes knew that Bottas was slow, they knew why he was slow and they knew that Hamilton would be MUCH faster if he got into clean air. Unlike the other teams, Mercedes knew this right from the start as they knew what was ailing Bottas in that opening stint.

None the less, they sat there and waited for Vettel to do what they could have done at any time. Felipe Massa was the first guy into the pits and he made up huge amounts of ground right away. Ferrari responded to this by pitting immediately on the next lap but Mercedes just sat there. Inexplicably, even when Vettel ate up several seconds per lap after switching tires, they still sat there doing nothing! Even when Max stopped and would have had the undercut, they still sat there! It took the safety car to wake them up apparently and then they had their drivers stacked up in the pits.

It wasn't well played by them at all no matter how you look at it but I do expect them to learn from this and improve.

Yes it lends even more weight to the argument that they should have pitted Hamilton earlier when they knew Bottas was holding up him and Vettel

Indeed but that would have broken their treasured rules of engagement were the leading driver can not be undercut to his own disadvantage.

Yes I'm not convinced any team is that wedded to policy that they wouldn't adapt if it meant getting ahead of the opposition. Mercedes aren't the only team with the "leader pits first" rule, but it would be strange indeed if they didn't have built in allowances for mitigating circumstances

We are talking about Mercedes and in particular Toto Wolff here.

Now there's that paranoia, thank god Bottas isn't german as well right?

Now there's that paranoia, thank god Bottas isn't german as well right?

Nothing to do with paranoia, more to do with perceived stubbornness and their often-visible inability to react to circumstances on track. Merc always seem slow to react, and Wolff always seems a stickler for his own rules.

In hindsight, yes Mercedes were outsmarted in all the 3 races by Ferrari, but it was impossible to foresee that early stop for Vettel yesterday and from there on, nothing else bar a 1-stop strategy would have worked.

I don't agree actually. If they had pitted Hamilton directly after Vettel they would have lost track position, but with Vettel 1 and Hamilton 2 they had a shot at undercutting Vettel with an early second stop.

Spot on Mercedes always seem so slow to react. Plus there would of been the slim chance of an overtake and being able to put pressure on Vettel.

Mercedes just let Hamilton follow Bottas around for a few laps going 2-3 seconds slower and doing more damage each lap they sleep

In hindsight, yes Mercedes were outsmarted in all the 3 races by Ferrari, but it was impossible to foresee that early stop for Vettel yesterday and from there on, nothing else bar a 1-stop strategy would have worked.

I don't agree actually. If they had pitted Hamilton directly after Vettel they would have lost track position, but with Vettel 1 and Hamilton 2 they had a shot at undercutting Vettel with an early second stop.

Spot on Mercedes always seem so slow to react. Plus there would of been the slim chance of an overtake and being able to put pressure on Vettel.

Mercedes just let Hamilton follow Bottas around for a few laps going 2-3 seconds slower and doing more damage each lap they sleep

The Mercedes could not last like the Ferrari on the SS!

How do you know? Mercedes said the softs was the better tyre. The gap would have defiantly of been smaller before the 2nd pit stops. Once Hamilton got past Bottas he reduced the gap to Vettel.

Mds mentioned pitting Lewis one lap after Vettel, if Mercedes did this I expect they would match Vettel with the SS anyway unless like I said originally the softs was the best tyre or change to SS at the end to attack Vettel. Or undercut Vettel at the 2nd pit stops, gives Mercedes a few options.

I think Mercedes went by Bottas' performance on the Super softs as they fell out quite quickly, but Bottas was sliding all over the place so that couldn't have been good for the tires. But Hamilton only had 15 laps to go with a car that was much lighter on fuel. I wish they went to the SS, I thought they might have been quicker.

I think Mercedes went by Bottas' performance on the Super softs as they fell out quite quickly, but Bottas was sliding all over the place so that couldn't have been good for the tires. But Hamilton only had 15 laps to go with a car that was much lighter on fuel. I wish they went to the SS, I thought they might have been quicker.

If Mercedes went by how Bottas performed on the SS then I would have to question them again. It's pretty clear Bottas was really slow compared to everyone around him on the SS. It's not Mercedes couldn't make the SS last but more Bottas.

I don't agree actually. If they had pitted Hamilton directly after Vettel they would have lost track position, but with Vettel 1 and Hamilton 2 they had a shot at undercutting Vettel with an early second stop.

Spot on Mercedes always seem so slow to react. Plus there would of been the slim chance of an overtake and being able to put pressure on Vettel.

Mercedes just let Hamilton follow Bottas around for a few laps going 2-3 seconds slower and doing more damage each lap they sleep

The Mercedes could not last like the Ferrari on the SS!

I don't see any mention of the tyres?

The reason why Hamilton wasn't put on SS for his final stint!

Your post still doesn't make sense, there was no mention of stints and tyres but only strategy.

Your post still doesn't make sense, there was no mention of stints and tyres but only strategy.

Because you are not thinking deeply!

Hamilton himself questioned why he wasn't put on the SS but for more info see James Allen!

I have already read through it.

"Bottas was up to a second a lap off Vettel on the same tyres in that second stint, which underlined Ferrari’s raw race pace and also indicated that the Mercedes was not working on the supersoft tyres."

It's underlines Vettels pace to Bottas which Bottas was slower than the Redbull in the first stint. Also looking at the lap times Vettel was only over a second quicker on two laps. This was not Hamilton's pace. Thats like comparing the Mercedes to the Ferrari but only in terms of Vettel vs Bottas who was off the pace all Sunday. Makes no sense to me at all.

Yes it lends even more weight to the argument that they should have pitted Hamilton earlier when they knew Bottas was holding up him and Vettel

Indeed but that would have broken their treasured rules of engagement were the leading driver can not be undercut to his own disadvantage.

Yes I'm not convinced any team is that wedded to policy that they wouldn't adapt if it meant getting ahead of the opposition. Mercedes aren't the only team with the "leader pits first" rule, but it would be strange indeed if they didn't have built in allowances for mitigating circumstances

We are talking about Mercedes and in particular Toto Wolff here.

Now there's that paranoia, thank god Bottas isn't german as well right?

Wolff has already said he needs to review how the team operates in comparison to the last few years, it's a policy he wasn't going to change mid race.

I don't agree actually. If they had pitted Hamilton directly after Vettel they would have lost track position, but with Vettel 1 and Hamilton 2 they had a shot at undercutting Vettel with an early second stop.

Spot on Mercedes always seem so slow to react. Plus there would of been the slim chance of an overtake and being able to put pressure on Vettel.

Mercedes just let Hamilton follow Bottas around for a few laps going 2-3 seconds slower and doing more damage each lap they sleep

The Mercedes could not last like the Ferrari on the SS!

I don't see any mention of the tyres?

The reason why Hamilton wasn't put on SS for his final stint!

Fair enough but I'm sure Hamilton could have made them last for more than 3 or 4 laps?

Your post still doesn't make sense, there was no mention of stints and tyres but only strategy.

Because you are not thinking deeply!

Hamilton himself questioned why he wasn't put on the SS but for more info see James Allen!

And Hamilton himself also said after the event that it was probably the right tyre to be on for that last stint, seeing as it lasted longer under stress.

But still I don't get your initial reply to this. A remark was made that once Vettel got in the lead, there were no options strategy-wise anymore for Mercedes. But there were. All they had to do was pit Hamilton the lap after Vettel's first stop, and they would have had a shot at undercutting Vettel for his second stop. You haven't really been too elaborate in your responses as to why this idea of mine is invalid. Can you indicate why then?

_________________Supporting all drivers with surnames starting with "V".

Proud member of the "It's Toro Rosso, not Torro Rosso" action committee.

Your post still doesn't make sense, there was no mention of stints and tyres but only strategy.

Because you are not thinking deeply!

Hamilton himself questioned why he wasn't put on the SS but for more info see James Allen!

And Hamilton himself also said after the event that it was probably the right tyre to be on for that last stint, seeing as it lasted longer under stress.

But still I don't get your initial reply to this. A remark was made that once Vettel got in the lead, there were no options strategy-wise anymore for Mercedes. But there were. All they had to do was pit Hamilton the lap after Vettel's first stop, and they would have had a shot at undercutting Vettel for his second stop. You haven't really been too elaborate in your responses as to why this idea of mine is invalid. Can you indicate why then?

If they had done that and put Hamilton on the SS Vettel would have won with a pitstop in hand! As the SS tyre wasn't working for Mercedes.

Your post still doesn't make sense, there was no mention of stints and tyres but only strategy.

Because you are not thinking deeply!

Hamilton himself questioned why he wasn't put on the SS but for more info see James Allen!

And Hamilton himself also said after the event that it was probably the right tyre to be on for that last stint, seeing as it lasted longer under stress.

But still I don't get your initial reply to this. A remark was made that once Vettel got in the lead, there were no options strategy-wise anymore for Mercedes. But there were. All they had to do was pit Hamilton the lap after Vettel's first stop, and they would have had a shot at undercutting Vettel for his second stop. You haven't really been too elaborate in your responses as to why this idea of mine is invalid. Can you indicate why then?

If they had done that and put Hamilton on the SS Vettel would have won with a pitstop in hand! As the SS tyre wasn't working for Mercedes.

The SS wasn't working for Bottas, got any proof it wasn't working for Hamilton? Hamilton was fine in the first stint.

Mds said Mercedes could have pitted a lap later than Vettel which they should of done. There was no mention of which tyre. If Mercedes did this they could undercut Vettel at the next stops, pretty simple really. Also it would keep the pressure on Ferrari and Vettel.

Your saying the Ferrari was so much quicker than the Mercedes of Hamilton that if he pitted a lap after Vettel then Vettel would of won the race with a gap of 20 seconds?

Your post still doesn't make sense, there was no mention of stints and tyres but only strategy.

Because you are not thinking deeply!

Hamilton himself questioned why he wasn't put on the SS but for more info see James Allen!

Oh we can refer to James Allen when it suits?

James Allen or SkyF1 crew are obviously experienced at what what they do, but the same as all British fans they are also biased toward the British drivers, and a lot of "guess work" or "guessed conclusions" they put forward (and they do guess a lot), is also influenced by that bias.

But when it comes to reaching a conclusion based on facts or analyzing data/numbers or lap charts, however strong that bias might be, even they cant make that 2 + 2 to equal 5 (although, I`seen some ridiculous attempts at it over the years).

Now, I havent read what James Allen has written about it, but if it isnt simply guess work and its based on data or facts instead, it might be worth reading.

Your post still doesn't make sense, there was no mention of stints and tyres but only strategy.

Because you are not thinking deeply!

Hamilton himself questioned why he wasn't put on the SS but for more info see James Allen!

And Hamilton himself also said after the event that it was probably the right tyre to be on for that last stint, seeing as it lasted longer under stress.

But still I don't get your initial reply to this. A remark was made that once Vettel got in the lead, there were no options strategy-wise anymore for Mercedes. But there were. All they had to do was pit Hamilton the lap after Vettel's first stop, and they would have had a shot at undercutting Vettel for his second stop. You haven't really been too elaborate in your responses as to why this idea of mine is invalid. Can you indicate why then?

Your post still doesn't make sense, there was no mention of stints and tyres but only strategy.

Because you are not thinking deeply!

Hamilton himself questioned why he wasn't put on the SS but for more info see James Allen!

And Hamilton himself also said after the event that it was probably the right tyre to be on for that last stint, seeing as it lasted longer under stress.

But still I don't get your initial reply to this. A remark was made that once Vettel got in the lead, there were no options strategy-wise anymore for Mercedes. But there were. All they had to do was pit Hamilton the lap after Vettel's first stop, and they would have had a shot at undercutting Vettel for his second stop. You haven't really been too elaborate in your responses as to why this idea of mine is invalid. Can you indicate why then?

If they had done that and put Hamilton on the SS Vettel would have won with a pitstop in hand! As the SS tyre wasn't working for Mercedes.

We actually don't know exactly what Hamilton's pace was on the SS though?

Your post still doesn't make sense, there was no mention of stints and tyres but only strategy.

Because you are not thinking deeply!

Hamilton himself questioned why he wasn't put on the SS but for more info see James Allen!

Oh we can refer to James Allen when it suits?

James Allen or SkyF1 crew are obviously experienced at what what they do, but the same as all British fans they are also biased toward the British drivers, and a lot of "guess work" or "guessed conclusions" they put forward (and they do guess a lot), is also influenced by that bias.

But when it comes to reaching a conclusion based on facts or analyzing data/numbers or lap charts, however strong that bias might be, even they cant make that 2 + 2 to equal 5 (although, I`seen some ridiculous attempts at it over the years).

Now, I havent read what James Allen has written about it, but if it isnt simply guess work and its based on data or facts instead, it might be worth reading.

No it was just a reference to something else that James said that was brought up in another thread but got totally ignored.

I don't think anyone is discounting the possibility that either Hamilton or Alonso could come out on top if they were teammates...But, again, the fact that it's not easy to do something or that you have only done it a couple of times, does not make it a fluke. You need the car and the team to do it and for the rest of his time at McLaren, he didn't have it. With better reliability, Hamilton would have done it more than just the twice but regardless of that, he earned those results in a very straight-forward way without some sort of fluke explanation. Alonso won 4 races that year (something which he has only done once since then too). Was that a fluke?

Alonso achieved that 4 times with three different teams, so of course not. In any case, it's not the same thing.

As for this:

Quote:

You need the car and the team to do it and for the rest of his time at McLaren, he didn't have it. With better reliability, Hamilton would have done it more than just the twice

you just explained why it was a fluke. So much has to go right for such a streak to be possible to achieve, and even though Lewis has had faster cars since then, he could only repeat the feat once. It's that rare, that hard to do because of everything that has to go right, and it happened in the one season he was teammates with Alonso, which is why IMO that season cannot be used to compare the two drivers.

What you're basically saying is that this season can't be used to compare Hamilton and Alonso because Hamilton won the matchup lol. I hope you realize how irrational that line of thinking is. You are ignoring the fact that it was his rookie season, ignoring the fact that Alonso had #1 status up to the Monaco GP and ignoring the fact that Lewis has had better seasons since then while suggesting that the podium streak is so unfathomable as to mean that lightning struck. I just can't go along with you on this Snake. It doesn't make sense.

I know it is irrational, which is why I didn't say that......

It's very easy: One season is not enough time to judge teammates. Alonso/Hamilton is an example of how one driver can go on an incredible hot streak and look better than their teammate. Maybe Lewis would've smoked Alonso the following year, we don't know. At least two seasons together would be enough to better judge how teammates compare to each other. One just isn't enough for many reasons, one of which I'm pointing out.

If you think you CAN judge teammates based solely on one season, then I'd love to hear why.

_________________"No, there is no terrible way to win. There is only winning."Jean-Pierre Sarti

I'm sure I heard on channel 4 that Verstappen was hitting purple sectors when he came out the pits, I'm not even sure how far he got round the track after he pitted though so I could be wrong.

Seeing these times makes it even more unbelievable Mercedes didn't react. Do they have a computer that decides everything and they simply won't go of it lol.

I'm not being harsh but Bottas ruined any chance Mercedes had of winning the race. If they pitted either driver first it would of helped Hamilton and I say Hamilton because he was obviously so much quicker. The race was over once Bottas was slow after the SC.

Verstappen didn't make it out of sector 1 on his out lap. His brakes failed at turn 4.

Your post still doesn't make sense, there was no mention of stints and tyres but only strategy.

Because you are not thinking deeply!

Hamilton himself questioned why he wasn't put on the SS but for more info see James Allen!

And Hamilton himself also said after the event that it was probably the right tyre to be on for that last stint, seeing as it lasted longer under stress.

But still I don't get your initial reply to this. A remark was made that once Vettel got in the lead, there were no options strategy-wise anymore for Mercedes. But there were. All they had to do was pit Hamilton the lap after Vettel's first stop, and they would have had a shot at undercutting Vettel for his second stop. You haven't really been too elaborate in your responses as to why this idea of mine is invalid. Can you indicate why then?

It's against Mercedes policy to undercut the lead driver though.

Which is a policy that needs to change now that they're battling Ferrari.

Their strategies need to evolve from 'pit lead driver on lap x, pit driver 2 on lap x+1.'

There's no question that Mercedes have grown accidentally complacent and are slow to re-calibrate to the new landscape. There's a lot of time in the season for shifts in momentum and I don't expect them to keep being slow and having the worse executed strategies. In fact, their strength in qualifying can become a mighty hurdle for Ferrari to overcome if Mercedes start operating a 1-2 policy.

They haven't grown complacemt, they've been complacent for 3 years.

Now it's possible there's conformation bias here but Hamilton's pit crew in particular has been guilty of some exceptionally shoddy pit stops over the past 3 seasons, I'd wager that Mercedes are regularly nowhere near the fastest pit stop award, and I think a look at average pit stop times by team and driver would be quite revealing.

I'm not sure what the bite means but a weakness for Hamilton is he can't read a race as good as Vettel, Vettel can think more on his feet.

I'm not sure what the 3 tenths means though, Mercedes did not have 3 tenths in Australia, I think that's being a bit unfair.

Have Mercedes been three tenths a lap quicker in race pace at any Grand Prix this season? It's been so close it's hard to make comparisons. I thought most people say the Ferrari is better on the SS anyway?

I'm not sure what the bite means but a weakness for Hamilton is he can't read a race as good as Vettel, Vettel can think more on his feet.

I'm not sure what the 3 tenths means though, Mercedes did not have 3 tenths in Australia, I think that's being a bit unfair.

Have Mercedes been three tenths a lap quicker in race pace at any Grand Prix this season? It's been so close it's hard to make comparisons. I thought most people say the Ferrari is better on the SS anyway?

Yeah when I think a bit more about it what the driver said was a bit ridiculous, no wonder he wanted to remain anonymous.

I'm not sure what the bite means but a weakness for Hamilton is he can't read a race as good as Vettel, Vettel can think more on his feet.

I'm not sure what the 3 tenths means though, Mercedes did not have 3 tenths in Australia, I think that's being a bit unfair.

Have Mercedes been three tenths a lap quicker in race pace at any Grand Prix this season? It's been so close it's hard to make comparisons. I thought most people say the Ferrari is better on the SS anyway?

Yeah when I think a bit more about it what the driver said was a bit ridiculous, no wonder he wanted to remain anonymous.

I'm not sure what the bite means but a weakness for Hamilton is he can't read a race as good as Vettel, Vettel can think more on his feet.

I'm not sure what the 3 tenths means though, Mercedes did not have 3 tenths in Australia, I think that's being a bit unfair.

Have Mercedes been three tenths a lap quicker in race pace at any Grand Prix this season? It's been so close it's hard to make comparisons. I thought most people say the Ferrari is better on the SS anyway?

Yeah when I think a bit more about it what the driver said was a bit ridiculous, no wonder he wanted to remain anonymous.

Ridiculous? For suggesting Lewis can be beaten?

No for saying that Vettel will beat Hamilton with a car that is 3 tenths slower, the Ferrari is hardly slower to begin with.

It's all in Lewis hands now, a faster car and a #2 teammate, what more can you wish for?He will iron out his mistakes so far and Mercedes will probably win the development race

I'm sure Lewis is wishing he had the race package of Ferrari. How Merc can go from being .1 faster than an even bigger gap and still lose out.

As for the Dev race I wouldn't be so sure. Things are very different when two teams are very close to each other. Ferrari may try and improve their Quali and Merc their Race pace. BUT I'd rather be in the situation of Seb with the Ferrari race package. Unless mistakes and reliability seriously factor in, Seb knows he has a major shot at this title. He knew it with the win at Bahrain. His face wasn't just yes a win, it was we beat Merc fair and square even with their bigger qualifying gap.

I'm not sure what the bite means but a weakness for Hamilton is he can't read a race as good as Vettel, Vettel can think more on his feet.

I'm not sure what the 3 tenths means though, Mercedes did not have 3 tenths in Australia, I think that's being a bit unfair.

Have Mercedes been three tenths a lap quicker in race pace at any Grand Prix this season? It's been so close it's hard to make comparisons. I thought most people say the Ferrari is better on the SS anyway?

Yeah when I think a bit more about it what the driver said was a bit ridiculous, no wonder he wanted to remain anonymous.

Ridiculous? For suggesting Lewis can be beaten?

No for saying that Vettel will beat Hamilton with a car that is 3 tenths slower, the Ferrari is hardly slower to begin with.

Well in Bahrain qualifying the Merc was easily 3 tenths faster than the Ferrari, and looked quicker in the race, too, yet Vettel still won. So maybe the person making the comment it alluding to that?

No for saying that Vettel will beat Hamilton with a car that is 3 tenths slower, the Ferrari is hardly slower to begin with.

Well in Bahrain qualifying the Merc was easily 3 tenths faster than the Ferrari, and looked quicker in the race, too, yet Vettel still won. So maybe the person making the comment it alluding to that?

Based on what? The fact that Bottas couldn't pull a gap on Vettel at all during the first stint or that fact that Vettel easily pulled a gap on Bottas during the second? I saw nothing to suggest the Mercedes was faster during the race except for the final stint when Hamilton was pushing to make up ground while Vettel was probably just cruising. If anything, it seems similar to early 2013 where Mercedes were great over a single lap but struggled with tires during the races.

No for saying that Vettel will beat Hamilton with a car that is 3 tenths slower, the Ferrari is hardly slower to begin with.

Well in Bahrain qualifying the Merc was easily 3 tenths faster than the Ferrari, and looked quicker in the race, too, yet Vettel still won. So maybe the person making the comment it alluding to that?

Based on what? The fact that Bottas couldn't pull a gap on Vettel at all during the first stint or that fact that Vettel easily pulled a gap on Bottas during the second? I saw nothing to suggest the Mercedes was faster during the race except for the final stint when Hamilton was pushing to make up ground while Vettel was probably just cruising. If anything, it seems similar to early 2013 where Mercedes were great over a single lap but struggled with tires during the races.

Well that final stint was pretty significant. As I've mentioned a few posts above, I appreciate Vettel was probably pacing himself in the final stint but even so the extent of the speed gap was pretty dramatic, enough to make me think that the Merc was perhaps that little bit quicker, like they were in qualifying. I'm not claiming it's conclusive but I'm finding it hard to believe Vettel left quite that much on the table. And Kimi was pushing to catch Bottas but was miles away from Lewis' times, despite being quicker than Vettel, which again tends to lend weight to the idea that the Mercedes was the quicker car

I'm not sure I saw any evidence of Lewis struggling on the softs in that final stint. He was really punishing the tyres and they held up pretty well IMO.